Non-reading | Perverse Egalitarianism

Again, returning to the subject of Pierre Bayard’s book – How To Talk About Books You Haven’t Read – I must say that this is ironically the only book I’ve read with such interest in some months, but then again did I really read it? Bayard’s playful title and amusing chapter headings predispose one to believe that the book is going to be some smart ass and sarcastic diatribe against reading which will turn out (down deep) to be a celebration of reading. In fact, the book does exactly what it promises in the very title, that is, explain how it is possible to talk about books one has not read. Of course, and here’s the trick, it also challenges some general assumptions about the nature of reading and the value of reading, and it does so in a very matter-of-factly way of asking very simple questions like: Does it really count as a “read” book if you’ve read the book but then forgot parts or all of it? For example, in philosophical circles one assumes that everyone “read” Plato, even if a specific dialogue is difficult to recall for a non-specialist, we all “know” what Plato is about and all, the problem, however, if it is a real problem (and it is not for Bayard), is that we talk about Plato as “readers” of Plato when in fact we actually do not remember much of Plato’s texts but only secondary references to them, references of various kinds such as other people’s lectures, our own vague memories, certain “important” sections etc etc. Reading, argues Bayard, turns out to be a kind of creative non-reading where even the books we’ve read from cover to cover (and how often does that happen, I ask) are not really “read” because by “reading” we generally mean a process of familiarizing oneself with the content of a specific book. Non-reading is a way to engage books, says Bayard, that, if one listens to Oscar Wilde, is as important as so-called “reading” – in fact, Wilde’s suggestion that one does not spend more than 10 mins with a book is a guiding principle throughout…